2006

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.1056 Tuesday, 28 November 2006
[1] From: Sean B. Palmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 25 Nov 2006 10:45:33 +0000
Subj: Re: SHK 17.1047 Licensing and Public Domain
[2] From: Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 25 Nov 2006 13:07:26 -0000
Subj: Re: SHK 17.1047 Licensing and Public Domain
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sean B. Palmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 25 Nov 2006 10:45:33 +0000
Subject: 17.1047 Licensing and Public Domain
Comment: Re: SHK 17.1047 Licensing and Public Domain
>Personally, I have a problem allowing someone else to make
>a profit off of something (even if it's $1) that was founded to be
>free for everyone.
So did I for a long time, but as a software developer that meant that
people would not use my code since there's a big social understanding
that software released by hobbyists should be free for any use.
I maintained my position until a friend savvy with licensing issues
pointed out the crux: "non commercial" is very poorly defined. For
example, what if someone were to republish some of your "free" online
edition of Shakespeare, but published a Google ad on each of their pages
to pay for the upkeep of the server? Non-commercial is too harshly
defined, out of necessity.
I think that non-commercial licenses are, in a way, trying to enforce
politeness. Perhaps you could think of using a commercial-friendly
license as trusting in the inherent politeness of people-even though
that's going to be a naive standpoint in many cases.
>1) In the opinion of the people on this list, which is the best type
>of license to use? (Even another option I didn't mention)
I'd use the GFDL (which you appear to be calling the "GPL", though
that's the software equivalent of the GFDL documentation license that
you link to). Wikipedia uses it, so there's a grand precedent there.
>2) What's your opinion on the quality of texts currently available
>online and free? Is there one particular site that stands out? Why?
I'd like original spelling texts of Shakespeare to be free as in public
domain. Conceptually they are, but if someone prepares those from the
original manuscripts, there are bound to be variations and I believe
that as such they must be considered under the copyright of the digitiser.
For example, ise.uvic.ca has brilliant transcriptions of the Quartos and
FF; an example:
http://ise.uvic.ca/Annex/Texts/Wiv/Q1/Work
Yet its copyright statement says...
[[[
All items published on the site of the Internet Shakespeare Editions,
whether text, image, sound or video files, are copyright. They may in
all cases, however, be used for educational, non-profit purposes.
]]] - http://ise.uvic.ca/Foyer/copyright.html
Which seems such as is absurd for the original spelling versions.
Perhaps someone on here is affiliated with uvic.ca and would be happy to
discuss the licensing conditions of these texts?
Thanks,
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 25 Nov 2006 13:07:26 -0000
Subject: 17.1047 Licensing and Public Domain
Comment: Re: SHK 17.1047 Licensing and Public Domain
Ron Severdia asks SHAKSPERians whether they think the GNU General Public
Licence or the Creative Commons Licence is better for a project that
will, I infer, give Shakespearian content away over the Internet.
It makes no difference, since you are most unlikely ever to attempt to
enforce the terms of the licence you pick. Even projects as large as
Linux are unable to stop corporations taking bits of licensed software
for unauthorized reuse in their products, and you've no chance of
preventing people commercializing your stuff if they decide to.
And why would you want to stop them? You comment:
>I have a problem allowing someone else
>to make a profit off of something (even if it's $1)
>that was founded to be free for everyone.
HTTP/HTML was founded to be free for everyone and without licence
restrictions to prevent commercial exploitation. This is a good thing,
for it allows you, Ron, to promote your commercial theatrical activities
via the websites you've made. With these websites you are
commercializing Tim Berners-Lee's gift to you (that is, HTTP/HTML), so
is it not hypocritical to seek to prevent others commercializing your work?
Regarding the Shakespeare texts currently available on the Internet, the
most carefully done are Michael Best's extraordinary Internet
Shakespeare Editions (ISE).
But only Cymbeline, Romeo and Juliet, Troilus and Cressida, and Venus
and Adonis are currently completed. All the rest are on the way and it
seems on the face of it pointless to replicate the serious academic work
of ISE.
Gabriel Egan
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.